tv Defense Authorization Markup Part 5 CSPAN May 4, 2015 3:05am-6:01am EDT
i will tell you that my inclination is going to a state-based system. because i just believe as a governor that, you know what gary herbert decides in utah versus what i decide in new jersey versus what matt meade decides in wyoming versus what phil bryant decides in mississippi, are all smart specialized things we know about our states. we get input from folks leek you. that's my view on it. the onerous nature of this is going to suffocate businesses, has already suffocated jobs and we know that. the 30-hour work week. all these things that are going on now surrounding a.c.a. has just suffocated economic growth and the president doesn't want to see it or acknowledge it because he believes in an omnipotent, omnipresent federal government and i don't. >> three more questions and that will be it.
please keep the questions short, identify yourself first. >> jim toland. as a followup, clearly obamacare hasn't been the most popular legislation or program with the republican party. and it does seem like people talk about repeal and replace but there's much more focus on repeal. the question really is, what's the replace? status quo wasn't working very well either. 50 million people uninsured, it's got to be more than we'll do it at the state level. what's the program to get a program that actually addresses the pathologies of the old system without baggage of the new? governor christie: we should get there and talk about it but take a deep breath. it's may 1. you know.
i don't -- quite frankly, i think all of us have to go about this in a responsible way. there's been more emphasis on repeal. you can't replace until you do repeal. so there's been more of an emphasis on repeal. but the fact is that all of us who are responsible and for those of us who decide to run for president, it's going to be our job to come forward with a specific plan and ideas. i would -- what i'm trying to give you is a window into my approach. i'm not going to sit here this morning and lay out my entire plan for replacing obamacare with all due respect. we'll do that in a different setting that makes more sense. but what i'm telling you is the directional guidance i'm giving you is that i believe this is a problem that's much more appropriately dealt with at the state level than it is dealt with at the federal level. all you need to do is look at the growth of medicaid over the course of the last number of years.
the last 25 years, medicaid has grown over 00%. and the economy has grown 200%. so you know, this system where the state pays for half of the cost but has almost no influence on the rules, which is where we're headed and where we are with obamacare, i think is a failure. and i think we're in the same spot. will be in the same spot with this kind of exponential growth if we allow obamacare to continue. >> but isn't that the same dodge -- ? >> this is not a time for discussion. next question please. >> governor, my name is paul stide, i'm with effective communications, also i'm a native of mendham, new jersey. governor christie: my hometown. >> two questions about superstorm sandy. how in your estimation is the recovery going? and how has -- have the events of superstorm sandy shaped you as a man and shaped you as a leader? governor christie: i'm on the recovery, the recovery is going very well. now our businesses are back up and running. our jersey shore tourism last
year set a record year. in the second year after sandy. and most of the new jerseyans who lost their homes are back in their homes. whenever i say that, i'm mindful of the people who are still not back in their homes. and there are some who are still not back in their homes. and so i always say to people, the recovery is going really well unless you're not back in your home. if you're not back in your home the recovery is going miserably. one of the problems in the aftermath of katrina was that there was significant rampant fraud in louisiana. and as a result, the federal government does what federal and state governments do all the time. they play the last game rather
than the next game. they look at what happened and they made the rules on aid so onerous, not on the state necessarily, but on the individuals in terms of proof and paperwork, that it held up a lot of what's going on. i think h.u.d. in particular has seen this over time and have begun to loosen up on those things and allowed get those people who are not in their homes at a much faster pace. we've spent billions of dollars already. we've increased resiliency in our states so when the next storm comes things will be better. i think overall the recovery has gone well. when you think about this, when i woke up on the morning after sandy, 365,000 homes had been destroyed. in 24 hours. 365,000 homes. we had no power in more than 2/3 of the state. we had 50-plus gas stations open and operational. most of the state highways were closed. all the schools were closed. there was no wastewater treatment plants in the state. it was as big a disaster as any state has ever ever sustained. and we're back on our feet and
people are back in our homes and economic activity has resumed so i feel very good about that. in terms of me, i can only tell you that in 2011, there were lots of people who urged me to run for president. and when i made the decision not to, i did something my political advisors said i should never say. i was asked, of course if you would be when you say you're not running for president i was asked why and i said because i'm not ready. and my advisor was like, no, no, no. that will last forever of you not saying you're ready to be president. you can't say that. i said, well, it's true. sandy went a long way toward making me ready. when you sit around a table and you get the reports of that destruction and that level of pain and loss, and then everybody, your cabinet, your law enforcement, your national guard all sit around the table
and after they report all that they then look at you and say, ok, what are we going to do? you get prepared as a leader in those moments like nothing else can prepare you. because you have a blank piece of paper in front of you. and human suffering all around you. and everybody, not just the people around the table but everybody in the state is looking to you to say, please fix this. please help. and that's why when i was going through sandy, i never spent more than half a day in the emergency operations center. from the day after sandy forward, i would spend half the day in the emergency operation center with all the different people i had to talk to, get briefed by and give instructions to. and i would always spend half the day in one of the -- in one of the towns that have been destroyed to actually remind myself all the time about who i was doing this for and what they really were concerned about. and i can't tell you in the beginning how emotionally impactful that was.
to walk into a town like belmar which i did on the first day after the storm, a jersey shore town, and have a woman come up to me and grab me and begin to hug me and say into my ear, i've lost everything. you're the only person who can help me. those are moments in my life that i'll never forget and have changed me as a person and have molded me as a leader. but in the end what people want is the truth. they want you to be decisive. they want you to be present. in their lives. when they feel as if their lives are at risk. and so sandy has changed me in every way that sandy could change somebody, that something like that could possibly do to both your mind and your heart and i would have never wished that on my state, ever, ever.
and hope and pray it never happens to anybody again at that level of devastation. but we learned from it. we're a better state because of it in the end. and once we get everybody back in their homes i'll be able to breathe a sigh of relief and say, you know, mission accomplished. but until that time you can't. you just keep plugging every every day. [applause] >> one more question. >> governor christie, this is isha chaudra, i'm with a global insurance brokerage. can you talk about the importance of having honest conversations with the american people. i would like to know how to balance the receptivity of receiving that information from the american people coming from politicians. governor christie: everybody
approaches this business differently. i'm someone who always tries to err on the side of letting people know what i really think. [laughter] [applause] this has to do with how i was raised. we're all a product of our parents, right? sometimes we're thrilled about that, sometimes we're not. i know my children will spend a significant time complaining to someone about something i did that i really thought was good when i did it but obviously i was completely wrong, right? we're all products of our parents. i grew up in a house with an irish father and a sicilian mother. [laughter] now, you all know what this means. this means i became at a very young age expert at conflict resolution. all right.
i'm the oldest son in that family and it's not that my mom was argumentative. it's just that she never found an argument that wasn't worth having. in her view. you know. and she used to tell us, whatever was bothering her all the time we'd say like, mom, enough, stop. she'd say to me, no, no, no, no, i'm getting this off my chest and i'm getting it off right now, you're going to listen. there will be no deathbed confessions in this family you're hearing it now. and i will tell you that, you know, it forms who you are right? the ethic i was taught is if there was a problem, talk about it now. if there's an issue get it off your chest. if you feel something, let people know it. and so it's hard then to get into politics and say, i'm going to conduct myself completely differently than the way i've
conducted myself for the 40-plus years before i got involved in politics. my mom used to say to me all the time, christopher, be yourself. because then tomorrow you don't have to worry about remembering who you pretended to be yesterday. it's great advice. i'll end with this, to give you greater insight to the impact this has on real lives. so i -- i'm talking about my mom in the past tense because she passed away 11 years ago next week. and she is the formative figure in my life and i tease my father all the time, he comes to my town hall meetings, i say, to understand my parent's relationship, in the automobile of life my father was the passenger. and he really doesn't like that but -- but i do so what the hell. [laughter]
so my mom in february of 2004 was on valentine's day was diagnosed with lung cancer. and she had been a lifetime smoker. and her disease progressed very quickly. and so by the end of april of 2004, i was at the u.s. attorney's national conference in san diego and i got a call from my younger brother saying to me, listen, mom's back in the hospital. really bad. if you want to see her, you have to get home now. i flew back to new jersey and landed at newark airport and got in the car and drove to the hospital. and i got there and they started to give her morphine and trying to manage her pain and i waited for her to wake up. she had not seen me for a week and said what day is it?
i said it's friday. she said what time is it? 9:30 in the morning. she said go to work. [laughter] governor christie: i said, mom i decided to take the day off. i'm going to spend the day with you. she said, christopher, it is a work day, go to work. i said are you afraid i'm taking advantage of taxpayers' money. she said go to work, it's where you belong, there's nothing left unsaid between us. and you know what? she was right. because of the way she taught me to conduct our lives. that thing she used to say all the time, you are going to hear it now. there are no deathbed confessions in this family. she was right. there didn't need to be. i knew she loved me.
i knew the things she wanted to change about me, but ran out of time to do it. right? i knew all that. so i leaned over and kissed her and i said ok, i'm going to work and i left and i never saw her again. but she let me go. if you want to understand the balance, in me, the balance is what i'm thinking in here what should i say or shouldn't i say, i think of her. and think if she were here now to watch the circus that my life has become, she would say two things to me. first thing she would say, remember, i changed your diapers, don't act like a big shot to me. and second, i could only imagine what she would say now. and secondly, she would say these people trusted you with
the most important job that they could give you in the state you were born and raised. you owe the person that. and so that's where i come down on the balance and has nothing to do with political calculation and everything to do with who i am and in the end, if you lose that, you have no business being a leader any way. be who you are. some people will like it and there may be some days where i may some things, maybe i want to phrase differently upon reflection. but here's the one thing that all of you will learn about me you will never have to wonder is that how he thinks, how he feels, and is that what he is going to do or does he mean it when he says he's not going to do. if that's your cup of tea, new jersey has said we like this guy. and if i decide to run for anything again, if people like
that, then that's what they'll get. if they don't, then i'll go home. but either way i'm going to be who i am and that's the balance. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> thank you, governor >> we have live coverage of mike huckabee as he announces his candidacy for the republican nomination.
an event and hope, arkansas. that is live tuesday on c-span. >> remarkable partnerships. iconic women. their stories in "first ladies code" the book. >> that was going to help sell papers. >> she takes over a radio station and starts running it. how do you do that? she did it. x she heard it enormous -- >> she heardrded enormous influence. >> looking inside the life's -- the lives of important ladies in
history. learn about their lives, their families and spouses. "first ladies," filled with stories of women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. often changing history. c-span's first ladies is an illuminating and inspiring read, now available at a hardcover -- as a hardcover or e-book. >> early thursday morning after a markup session, the house armed services committee passed the fiscal year of the 16 opposition bill by a vote of 60 22 -- 60 2to 2. representative mac thornberry, a republican from texas chairs the committee with adam smith, the
>> absolutely. >> without objection the amendment is considered as read. the lady is recognized. >> thank you. we go back to this issue of the fact that the secretary panetta before he left and the joint chiefs all unanimously get -- got together and said women should have a chance to be in combat roles we have been working on this for last few years trying to figure out how we measure what is needed in combat roles.
and then we have had women volunteer, infantry training , training sessions to take a look and see how they would fare. we are going through the process, looking at the gender-neutral standard to try to figure out which ones work and are working toward this january 2016 period, where i would hope, maybe it won't happen, but i would hope all units would be open to women. that will be determined through the standards and the tests that we are putting some of these women through. so what happened a few years ago was a new section was put in
basically saying that if any would be opened or closed to women there needed to be a notification to congress of 30 consecutive days to strike the 30 day required now in law. why do that? we are going through this system, through the gender-neutral standards, going through the study and the department of defense is going to tell us that they we will open. so by striking this language they would just notify the congress when they are going to
open or close an m.o.s. to women. under the current language the way that it is written, it must be 30 consecutive days of congress being in session, which means once the department determines that they we will open or close an m.o.s. it could be four or five or six months before they can actually place someone. this would eliminate that lapse. it is still a notification of congress. we still would be able to hold hearings and come back and send notice we do not agree, but it would allow them to fill those slots. because you open an mos today it does not mean you put a woman in tomorrow or a man in tomorrow. but by eliminating the current language we will not have four or five or six month lag time. that is what this amendment would do.
german: -- chairman: further discussion on this amendment. original lady from arizona. >> i fully support our colleagues from california's amendment. this original language was support of compromise after some effort to try to roll back positions of women in the military. i think it is reasonable that they would be notification but not that would be unduly delaying the action from happening. i fully support this amendment and i yield back. chairman: >> further discussion? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, along the same line of discussion, the amendment suggested by ms.
sanchez, there were good reasons these compromises were worked out. i do not think anyone is suggesting the qualifications or achieved for training is conducted and this would have undue delay and qualification being awarded to male or female if training was successfully completed, but there are factors, and when it was determined and how it would be implemented. the british study conducted in december of 2014 determined that there were 40 percent more injury rates of those who had successfully completed training and would have met qualification but many were harmed permanently with medical damage.
it has to it has to have determination to evaluate the population of those successfully completing training to see whether or not they could be. this would be like a sports medicine coat on a professional team, 40 percent injury rate that coach would be fired. we have to make these allowances. i go back and urge mr. chairman to look at the issue neutrally. that will be tantamount, they knew what they were volunteering for. therefore the government has no responsibility to deal with the fallout.
those that were spraying agent orange in vietnam, they knew were they were getting at. there are good reasons why we see these limitations. and it's constitutionally that we provide for the common defense of these united states. we have to do that with combat in mind, male or female. it's vital we have such a notification to duly elected representatives. i asked my colleagues to do the same. it's not that we can't once again get to these issues that we can't ignore things like medicine, physiology they can be trained up to and overcome and might be implemented with more effective training. we have seen advancement and soldier skills. i personally believe that we can
mitigate factors, get to them, but to waive these things aside, the same body calling in generals and their uniforms and ribbons. as we wanted to make sure they would be future leaders in these organizations and instead the same ones that rushed us and will be the same ones with vigor and red-faced demanding answers. in the answers are as right here in this body. let's deliberate, do it with skill possibility, study, but correctly. >> female olympic softball teams. i am asking this body to reject this amendment because this
it does not offer promotion opportunity. the enemy does not recognize men or women in a uniform. it recognizes weakness. lack of discipline, confusion. combat is not a pretty scenario. i was to say war was easy, but war is not. sometime it is hand-to-hand and breath to breath. the decision affects the life of our service member. i do not think 30 days is a lot considering the stakes right now there are few most going to ranger training.
god bless them. there is females that have gone through marine officer training. these are not easy courses. and i am confidant there is going to be success and we will be able to evaluate the details observations and studies and come to a conclusion where everyone, regardless of gender has a role to play in the nation's defense. >> would the gentlemen yield yet? >> not yet. >> 30 days is not a big decision. in the worst case it is six months. we are talking about the life and death of my daughter, your daughter, and our nation's
daughter. so mr. chairman, with that, i will yield. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you to the gentlemen for yielding. i would like to ask the committee staff if we, the congress, have ever stopped any of the department of defense requests over the past years? >> not that the i am aware of. >> that is what i thought. so far we have not stopped any of them. i don't even know -- i could ask our personnel people have we had hearings when you mos's have opened up to try to stop or ask what has been going on? >> we have not asked to have those hearing. >> you have not been asked to have them. so again, we have been studying this and changing the standards. this is the last three years this is watt we have been doing. we are committed to january 2016. the military is coming with
different services and i am almost sure some will say we have 11 mos's that are closed to woman and we will open five, but six we will ask to hold them aside. i don't think every single mos is going to be opened up. i have been following this along and talking to people in charge of doing these things. but once they decided that of the 11 we are going to open up five. they are going to notify us. and under the current law, they have to wait until they are 30 consecutive days of congress before they can put someone into that billet and that could be four, five or six months. we have done all of the studies, the standards, we have gone through all of this. anybody, and i have been holding briefings and things about the whole process so everybody could ask of the professional trainers and of the doctors, of the
physical people looking for all of the information. some came and some have not. the reason that this law exist is because we were changing but we didn't have this whole process in place. now we have had this process. all i am saying is once they decided let's open these up, let's start putting people in those places, i think we should be notified. if we feel that it is wrong, we want to hold a hearing or whatever, let's do it. or i would ask my colleague if 30 days is not long how about we say 30 calendar days to fill that spot. but this four month and six month and let's drag it out to more and let's stop doing this
is just an impediment to getting on with the thing. i will yield back. >> whoever's time that was is expired. gentlemen from florida, mr. nugent. >> i yield my time to ms. sally. >> i think it is important for the committee to understand what this is and isn't. and a little history. it has never been against the law for women to serve in ground combat. but combat air craft and ships have been against the law but they were appealed in the early 1990s. it was never in the law for women to be restricted from ground combat. this particular provision that is being slightly modified comes from 2007 or so, just asking if any other positions were going to be opened, putting another
road block to extend, trip it up and create a barrier, but since then the department of defense decided it is going to open positions up to women and have until january 2016 to come this body and let us know there are some positions they want to remain justified closed which is in a different part of the law. that is a separate provision that came from the defense law two years ago. someone can correct me on this. this is going back to a 2007 provision saying don't take 30 continuous days of congress to notify us. it has been superseded by the recent decisions by the pentagon is playing into this. i think we are getting wrapped up about debating women in combat. that is not what this is about. it has never been against the law.
the notification is still here over oversight here, it is just not having another barrier. we will wait for the report and continue to provide oversight to the whole process. thanks for that opportunity and i yield back. >> i yield back. >> gentlelady from california? you are good? you? >> thank you. i support this amendment. they are doing the studies. they are evaluating whether or not women can physically do some of these jobs. there are men who can not do these jobs. the 30 consecutive congressional days is what we are talking about. the studies are ongoing. they are not just studying british doctors, they are studying american doctors. what this amendment does is wave the 30 consecutive days of congress being in service.
by the time they say we want to add or lift the restriction those studies web have been done. i would like to ask if my understanding of the amendment is correct? >> that is correct. we have been doing studies and looking at the physical attributes. in a perfect world i would imagine all mos's will open aon -- open up on january 15th. but do i believe they will? no. but those who do, let's get on with it and let women and men who are want to and are capable fill those positions and we will get the best americans in those slots. >> i yield back. >> will the gentlelady yield?
>> i rise in strong support of this amendment. i represent a district in massachusetts that works with native soldier systems and that is a remarkable facilities within the united states army. they have been tasked with developing gender neutral standards for every combat related position within the army. as we debate which position should or should not be open to women serving in combat there is always a second step once that position is deemed to be appropriately open anyone who seeks to serve in anyone of those positions will have to meet these gender neutral standards and that is true for men as well as women. so just to clarify. there is nothing automatic about this. we understand the challenge of
those who seek to serve in this capacity and we want to be sure they have the capability but i have no doubt many women will meet those standards and serve in those positions. >> mr. mccarthur? >> i yield my time to mr. russell. >> and i thank the gentlemen from new jersey. i get the sense, mr. chairman, as we hear the discussion back and forth i look at this as a congressional oversight issues. this is not something that we are trying to make it whether or not we should have women in combat or whether or not it goes back to a certain date or whether or not we had people performing certain roles. this is a 30-day notification and for the reasons stated and i
heard the question asked if they make the qualifications why can't they be immediately assigned and there is a number of reasons. the military would have to reorganize the formations and have to make accommodations and do many of these things, which are not out of the scope of being performed, but they require time and notification. it is almost as if we hear in the discussion as if there is and that is not my motivation. but there are practical reasons we look and have notifications to make sure units can accommodate and are able to deal with the situations units would have to do, have the correct skills, whether or not those positions are open, there may
not be slots, i could go on and on in that regard. 30 days is not going to hurt anyone. and out of respect to some of the colleague's comments of men and women entered these and failed and that might be true. but they don't get the position. this is an issue of meeting the standard. and if the standard is met which we would agree, we need to have accommodation. i served in uniform a long time. i also, unlike some of my colleagues speaking on the issue, i served in these units. i have been through ranger school and understand the requirements. do i think they can be met and trained to? i have stated i believe they can.
but having a 30 day notification from congress is something we should constitutionally abide by in this one aspect. we want the best common defense for this nation. it is not that there is some effort to get at or eliminate or prevent or whatever. i do think that we have an incredible opportunity to lay the foundation correctly. we can put it in foundation stone by foundation stone. we can do it in a way with good science, medicine and technology. and it is stated that we have had all of these briefings already and because certain members haven't been here in congress they have not seen it. i may not be here in congress but i walked in those units and elements. and there are valid reasons. i may not have the political background.
it is not academic for me. it is something i am familiar with. these are things that 30 days are not going to harm. i understand the spirit of it. and i respect ms. sanchez. we agree on some things and not on some. i believe this was put in as a compromise. everybody voted on it in the past. that is why i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. >> questions on the amendment offered up? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am sorry i cannot let this one pass by. it is interesting to hear the conversation around this issue as though it is a new issue. women have been serving in the ground combat battles for quite some time.
for all of our sisters who wear the uniform it is difficult to hear the enemy sees weakness when you talk about integrating women into this. talking about dealing with face to face combat in life and death situations. ten years ago, an mp from a national guard unit in kentucky, her squad was doing convey -- convoy security in iraq when they were am ambushed. she led the team to assault with a grenade and a launcher round. she and her squad leader cleared two trenches and she personally killed three insurgeants with her rifle. 27 of them were dead, six wounded and one captured.
she was awarded the silver star with valor for close quarters combat. this happened in 2005 march. over ten years ago. what we are talking about here is not rushing something through or giving special consideration to women over men. all we are talking about is opening a door to highly qualified professional warriors regardless of their gender without exception or special consideration or discrimination. i yield back. >> thank you. just remind everybody that the issue on this amendment is whether there is a 30 day lag time between the time they make a decision and notify us and it is implemented. there is lots we can talk about on this subject. but at this hour and with the number of amendments we have to go is the question on the 30 days. >> it is not 30 days.
it is 30 continuous day. that is four to six months. >> but my point is this is a fairly narrow question for this amendment. i am not cutting anybody off but reminding you we have lots to come. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> when i said weakness i did not mention women. i said the enemy looks at weakness and that is my point. nowhere did i say the women were weak. i fought with women. to infer that weakness -- is unfair and unjust. when i say we need 30 days as seal instructor we need 30 day s because there are changes that may or may not take place. medical, curriculum, the what
if, the female anatomy is different than the male anatomy and the training programs need to accommodate because we want -- don't want failure due to not being prepared. it does take time. >> mr. castro, i mind like to yield to congresswoman dublin. >> the 30 days -- my understanding is from when the department of defense from the branch of service says we have looked at this. we want to open or close this
position. and they would like to move forward with the preparations to get this seal training program adjusted. whatever it is. they want to be able to initiate the movement toward making those changes. this right now there is a 30 continuous congressional day that prevent them from initiating this. so they want to start action and movement on this. let's just put the emotions aside and i am part of this as well. when people start talking about whether or not women should serve and people say the enemy sees weakness or this or that. what the enemy sees is americans standarding firm to fight for their nation. if they are ready to get a group of americans compete let them
start movement to allow it to happen and setup the condition so people can to the job they want to do. let's lift the limits. i do not think what we are asking is going to slow anything down. tomorrow you will have women show up and better be ready. i have every confidence in the navy's ability to plan out the deployment -- the appointment of women to these new positions and let them move on that as soon as they want. as someone who came to congress at time when they had the least number of working days ever i was sensitive to this issue
because i want them to get to work. i yield back. >> mr. davis? >> wonder if the staff could help us. we need a clarifying amendment to say not less than 30 calendar days. >> that would be acceptable. it isn't i don't want to do oversight or have a chance to look at things but a lot of this work is being done now you guys. >> ok. we have to have unanimous consent to modify the pending amendment and it would have to be clear the way it was modified. any objection to to modifying the amendment to add in such a
change that could be implemented only after the end of 30 cal calender day? any objection to such a modification? without objection to amendment is modified. those in favor aye. those in favor say no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. proceedings will resume on amendments which roll call votes. 275 to strike the retirement
reform, 280 on doca, mr. spear, 157 on sexual assault and ms. spear 201 on sex i'm -- 257 to strike the provision on retirement reform. the clerk will call the role. >> thornberry? >> no. >> mr. smith? >> mr. smith votes no. mr. jones? >> no. >> mr. jones votes no. >> ms. sanchez? gibson? no. >> mr. forbes? >> no. mr.
brady? mr. brady votes no. mr. miller? mr. miller votes aye. ms. davis? no. mr. wilson? >> no. >> mr. larson? mr. larson? mr. bishop? mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes no. mr. cooper? mr. cooper votes no. mr. turner? mr. turner votes no. mr. cline? mr. cline votes no. mr. courtney? votes no. mr. frank? mr. frank votes no. >> mr. shuester? no. mr. johnson? mr. johnson votes no. ms.
spear? ms. spear votes no. mr. lanborn? mr. lanborn votes no. mr. caster? mr. caster votes no. mr. hunter? mr. hunter votes no. mr. peters? mr. peters votes no. dr. flemming? dr. flemming no. mr. gibson? mr. gibson votes aye. mr. walls? mr. walls votes aye. mr. o'rourke? mr. o'rourke, no. mr. norcroft? mr. corcroft, no. mr.
davis votes aye. mr. wilson? mr. wilson votes no. mr. long? mr. long votes aye. mr. larson? mr. larson votes aye. mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes no. mr. cooper? mr. cooper votes aye. mr. turner? mr. turner votes no. ms. bord? ms. bord votes aye. mr. cline? mr. cline votes no. mr. courtney? mr. courtney votes aye.
mr. rogers? mr. rogers votes no. mr. franks? mr. franks votes no. mr. shuster? mr. shuster votes no. mr. whitman? mr. whitman votes no. mr. hunter? mr. hunter votes no. mr. peters? mr. peters votes aye. dr. flemming? dr. flemming votes no. mr. gibson? mr. gibson votes aye. mr. walls? mr. walls votes aye. ms. heart? ms. heart votes no. mr. o'rourke? mr. o'rourke votes aye. mr. scott? mr. scott votes no. mr. brooks? mr. brooks, no.
members who missed the first vote? >> there were no members. >> how am i recorded? >> you are recorded no. >> i would like to change to a yes. >> the gentleman from california. >> no. >> mr. johnson. mr. johnson is recorded a no. >> any other members -- i'm sorry. the gentleman from rhode island. >> yes. >> any other members wish to be recognized?
>> the gentleman from rhode island. >> how is the gentleman from rhode island recorded? >> mr. langevin is recorded no. >> i change my vote to yes. >> the clerk will report the result. >> there are 14 aye votes, 49 no votes. >> the amendment is not adopted. the question now occurs on 201. the clerk will call the roll. >> clerk calling roll.
>> the clerk will report the results. >> plrp 23 aye votes, 40 no votes. >> and the amendment is not agreed to. if there are no further amendments the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada dr. heck for the purposes of offering a motion. >> i move to adopt the subcommittee report of the subcommittee of military personnel as amended. >> questions on the motion?
in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. >> mr. chairman. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> just a quick question. the sanchez amendment did we adopt it before we did the roll call on the amendments by unanimous consent? >> we did. the sanchez amendment as amended was avopted by voice vote. >> thank you. how long did we debate that? >> a long time. the committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee on strategic forces. pursuant to committee rules and in consultation with the ranking member we'll postpone recorded votes in this subcommittee mark until the end. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from alabama mr. rogers for any comments he
would like to make. >> thank you mr. chairman. i am not really interested in hearing myself talk so i ask for my opening statement. i am proud of this mark and what we have accomplished and urge support of the committee. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes mr. cooper for any comments. >> mr. chairman, it's been a genuine pleasure to work with my friend the gentleman from alabama. we tried as best we could to take care of much of business at the subcommittee level unfortunate we were unsuccessful at you are about to see because there are some 27 stand alone amendments if they are all offered. we are hopeful that they will not be. we have three large enblock amendments that takes care of some but these 27 others are stand alone. so it could be a long night unless people are economical with the time. >> i thank the gentleman. both he and the chair, for
their efforts to move us along. are there any further discussions on the subcommittee report? are there any amendments to the subcommittee report? the gentleman from ohio mr. turner have an amendment? >> i do. the list wasn't up yet. i wasn't certain who went first. >> we were trying to move expeditiously. the clerk will please distribute mr. turner's amendment.
without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from ohio has recognized -- >> i would like to offer this amendment and lend my strong feelings of concerned over this week's announcement that the u.s. might accelerate its dismantlement of nuclear war heads by 25% this would cap the budget at $50 million per year over the next five years and prohibit dismantlement of nuclear war heads retired after 2009 with certain exceptions. it also includes a prohibition of nuclear cruise missile war heads for five years. this amendment helps set priorities in defense spending. dismantlement is not a high priority. on contrary getting modernization done is the highest priority. this does not contradict any u.s. treaty obligations.
any of our current arms control treaties and none of those require us to dismantle our nuclear war heads. a cap of $50 million per year is more than appropriate because actually nnsa's five-year plan is around $50 million. it's 40, 48, 50, 52. 51 in 2020. the 2016 budgeted request details its plan to focus the next five years of dismantlement work on war heads retired prior to 2009. this provides enough money to do this and does not restrict the work on pre2009 war heads. this would prohibit the dismantlement for five years. a fitting restriction certainly as we wait and see if russia will return to compliance with the inf treaty. as russia continues to reekravock on
world order and this sends the wrong message. frequently talk about the issue of nonproliferation. this would make certain that the united states recognizes that we are in a different environment now that putin has undertaken his aggressiveness at the same time maintaining our nuclear stockpile that we maintain as a hedge for a changing environment. >> is there further discussion on the amendment? the gentleman from tennessee mr. cooper. >> mr. chairman, i think this is a very clumsy way to send a message to vladmir putin. i think the main effect of this amendment -- and i regret the subcommittee was not able to have any hearing or serious discussion. it was more or less sprung on us. i recognize the expertise of the gentleman offering the
amendment. but the way i understand the amendment is mainly going to unbalance the workforce because as i understand that weapons facility has used dismantlement as a sort of gap filler between their other duties. i think that to undertake something like this and really the key to this amendment is not the funding restriction, it's more the absolute prohibition on any dismantlement of weapons retired after 2009. and also the prohibition on dismantling the w 84. again, it's a very awkward and clumsy way to approach an important topic. i wish the gentleman would reconsider. >> would the gentleman yield? i just want to underscore this actually fits within their current plan. all it does is hold them to their current plan and doesn't allow acceleration of it. so all the concerns you have are taken into conversation here because this does not change the direction nsa was
going. it just does not allow it to be accelerated. >> may i reclaim my time and say it is my understanding that both d.o.d. and nmp nsa are opposed to the amendment. i urge my colleagues to also oppose the gentleman's amendment. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from arizona mr. franks is recognized. >> briefly i just want to speak in support of the amendment. we are in a dangerous and more complicated environment than we have been in past days. that is perhaps why we have so many amendments in this particular area right now. i identify with every sill bill that mr. turner spoke. i think that his rationale here is perfect and the reality is that the nuclear umbrella of the united states is stretched thinner and thinner as the days go by and with the unrest in the middle east there may be a time when certain middle eastern i won't say partners
but those who identify with america might look to us for our nuclear umbrella and if they have any doubts of its bench that somehow we will not be able to respond to that in emergency they might begin to build their own capability. so i think that the amendment has many important factors to it and i certainly support it and hope the committee will too. >> further discussion on the amendment. the gentleman from alabama. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i quickly offer my thanks to the gentleman for offering this amendment. this helps us set priorities in the defense spending which has been a key thing for us. accelerating the u.s. nuclear weapons dismantlement rate by 20% sends exactly the wrong message that we want to send to russia and allies. russia continues to make overt nuclear threats to the u.s. and allies we accelerate our
disarmment. this is crazy. >> further discussion. if not the question is offered by the gentleman from ohio mr. turner. those in favor aye. those opposed no. the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona mr. franks for the purpose of offering an amendment. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> if the clerk would please distribute the amendment. >> if the gentleman will suspend. i think it's good to give our folks chance to distribute the amendment so members can see it before we start talking about it.
without objection the amendment will be considered as read and the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, the amendment before the committee will task the missile defense agency to begin element for a space based missile intercept and defeat layer. not only could this defeat ballistic milssles but anti-ship missiles as well and could be hardened against solar or man-made pulse and ant satellite weapons. there were many people who doubted that missile defense would ever work in the first place, that it would be "like hitting a bullet as a bullet" but today is almost everyone on this committee knows our
missile defense accuracy equate to consistently hitting a dot on the side of a bullet with a bullet. however, this technology is now increasing at a pace we have never seen before. potential adversaries are investing heavily in technologies with the explicit purpose of defeating our defensive capabilities. in 2011 general oh royalie stated that the technology exists such that a space based layer could be developed within ten years. further, this limited capability for the defense of the homeland would be a fraction of the cost of a global constellation. there are no treaties that prohibit space-based interceptors and the cost is relatively minimal considering other options. there will be those that will argue that this is not the right approach to missile defense that it is too expensive and we should be focusing on left of launch.
we are in the midst of negotiations with iran that i am convinced are now on trajectory to legitimize them as a nuclear threshhold state and will astonishingly but nerls will likely make no mention of their ballistic missile defense program let alone their most active state sponsor of terrorism label in the world. just related to north korea alone our own secretary of defense's left of launch solution was a surgical strike into that country to try to take out their rapidly deletch developing ballistic missile defense program. that was offered nine years ago. in the abseps of viable left of launch options we need to continue our own technological advancements in missile defense because our potential adversaries continue to grow stronger and more sophisticated every day. i yield the balance of my time and urge the adoption of this
amendment. >> the gentleman from tennessee mr. cooper. >> i support missile defense but this proposal is so bold and so expensive and probably so impractical i am worried that it does a disservice to the cause of missile defense. in 2012 the national academy of sciences issued a report saying this would require some 650 new sthrilets and a contellation costing some $300 billion. and we are not even paying for our current defense bill. we are pretending that oako funding is somehow taking care of some of the most basic readiness needs of our armed services. we're borrowing money from china to pay this bill. so to go for a pie in the sky proposal like this makes star wars look timid is a pretty extraordinary thing to do. another east mat says it is not 650 satellites it is 1,000 or
more. it's east mated to be $100 billion. i don't mind spending the money as long as we are not borrowing from china as we have done for a decade or more. all our satellites are vulnerable right now to anti-satellite attack. until we have a better means of foiling that we could be investing in a constalation that's vulnerable. but the key point is this. i'm for missile defense, for what works, and what is practical. and this is not it. >> the gentleman from colorado. >> mr. chairman i yield my time to representative franks on this excellent amendment. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. chairman, very briefly. i want to address the item of cost. mr. cooper is correct in that the predictions are that a global constellation would cost around $300 billion. but what we're talking about
here is a homeland defense for the united states, and that would be approximately $26 billion over a 20-year period. i think that equates somewhere around $600 million a year. with a missile defense budget somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 to 10 billion a year, we are not talking about something far out of range here. what we are talking about one of the most significant advances and pushing back one of the most important frontiers we could have for missile defense that has implications ultimately for far more than just iran and north korea and has implications for cruise missiles for a lot of different technologies that are in the future going to be a major threat to the united states. i would just suggest that sometimes we save money in the 90's we saved a little money on human intelligence, we saved a little money on surveillance, and then when two airplanes hit
two buildings it cost $2 trillion. consider what would happen if that had been a nuclear strike. 5 or 600 million a year for advanced missile defense capability would not seem a great challenge to us at that point. i hope the committee would support the amendment. i yield back. >> the gentleman from colorado yield back? mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. one of the advantages and disadvantages of being on a committee for 14 years you can look back and say i remember when. some of the folks on the committee have been here longer. but in 01 the mantra was any missile defense was better. and with bipartisan cooperation of the committee we moved to a concept of more like better missile defense is better. and now it seems like with this amendment we're starting to sneak back into any costly more
expensive missile defense is better. i think that's not the direction we ought to be going. we ought to be focused on what's smarter what's better in missile defense. that's where the two side agree and where we pushed the department of defense to move towards test then deploy as opposed to deploy only. so i am going to ask the committee members to vote against this amendment for that reason. we made a lot of advances in missile defense and affected missile defense. changed some concepts i would say on the margins rather than on whole cloth. but when we look at space-based we know these concepts would likely be extremely expensive to implement may not be fiscally sustainable which is in fact a key requirement of the review. and as an important point in the resource constraint
environment that we are in. in comparison one of the advantages of sm-3 is its low cost and money spent would inevitably come at the expense of current missile defense programs again in an era of increasing budget constraints. also just as a point there's no operational requirement for space-based interceptors. we have a robust ground base and sea based programs that continue to improve. and i think that's looking back just sort of for context and perspective, that is kind of where we ought to stay focused on the missile defense for sea based and ground based interceptors and moving towards going back to the future, if you will in any missile defense is better missile defense as opposed to a smarter, more effective missile defense that which we test then
deploy as opposed to just directing the department to go do this any one thing in this case space based which analyses have shown is expensive not fiscally sustainable and we're moving forward pretty aggressively on the missile defense programs that we have. for those reasons i would encourage the rest of the committee to look hard at this particular amendment and would implor you a little bit to vote against this because i just think we're going back to the future. and in early 2000's it was not a good future for missile defense. we got it on the right track. i don't want to get on the wrong track again. >> thank you. mr. rogers. >> i u.s. this amendment. it's just calling for the study of potential missile defense improvements given the activities of russia, china, north korea and now iran it's the only responsible thing to do. i urge its adoption.
>> >> i support the amendment. i yield my entitlement to mr. franks. >> mr. chairman, the chairman of the subcommittee made my point. this is asking the missile defense agency to begin an initial concept development. this is not talking about building out the system. thank you. >> further discussion on the amendment? if not the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. the ayes have it. the ayes have it. and the amendment -- the gentleman from washington plfment larson asks for a roll call vote which will be postponed. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama mr. rogers for the purpose of offering an amendment. the clerk will distribute the amendment.
without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes. >> i offer this amendment to advance the committee's mission to set priorities in defense spending. the rationale is simple. we should not be spending money when there are no clear requirement force the technologies. early stage technology r&d is left untouched by this amendment. that is where we develop new science and new ideas. the requirement ks be fuzzy at this stage. but late-stage development when we need to have clear
requirements and a clear objective. my amendment simply says that nnsa cannot fund for nonproliferation and arms control monitoring and verification technologies, unless it has clear requirements. my amendment provides the secretary of energy has authority to waive this for national security reasons. we cannot be spending millions of dollars when we don't even understand how it will be used. that's just a jobs program for bored scientists. let's set some priorities in our bill that fund things that contribute to national security. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment. >> the gentleman from tennessee. this is the third amendment we've had that didn't have a hearing before the subcommittee. and i almost wonder if my good friend and colleague from alabama heard the previous debate because that was all about advanced tech noming. here we're going to try to somehow limit the full development of technology that could help us detect cheating
by nuclear powers around the world. we need advanced technology like this now more than ever because it is well known that the north koreans have cheated, it is well known that several other nations have been cheating. we need to catch them and to limit these developments just at the prototype stage makes me wonder. i tried to attend all the hearings. i didn't remember anything about a limitation on technology. it seems to me to be ant science and ant national defense. i wish my good friend and colleague would reconsider this amendment. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> further discussion on the amendment? now the question occurs on the amendment offered by mr. rogers. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the aye have it. the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to.
next the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee mr. cooper for the purposes of offering an amendment. >> mr. chairman, actually several olve us came up with the same idea so i want to give mr. franks and mr. bride stine credit. >> and the gentleman wishes to offer the amendment if the clerk would please distribute the amendment. without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman. this amendment would basically make sure that israel gets the missile defense funds that it wants and needs right now.
we are talking iron dome david's sling, arrow. there are some legitimate issues which the chairman of the subcommittee and i are very well aware of. they were kind of dirty laundry issues in the weeds negotiations. but we should not let those concerns delay or hinder in any way israel our true friend in the middle east getting what it needs right now. so i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. it's totally bipartisan at least if mr. frampingse and mr. -- aren't afraid of being associated with me. this would do a lot i think to improve the mark and to have it be sustainable not only on the floor but in the senate. so i urge my colleagues to clear out the underbrush, make it easier for israel to get the money they need in their hour of need and support this amendment. i yield to my friend the
gentleman from colorado. >> thank you representative cooper. and i just want to compliment you. this is a well thought-out amendment. i appreciate what you're trining to do here and this is a great example of working together. i urge my colleagues to support this also. >> i thank the gentleman. i yield back the balance of my time. >> if the gentleman from tennessee would yield to the chair, my understanding is there is a squential referral issue with this amendment. is that true? >> there is. and that's one of the thing is regret about these markups because this is legitimate issue of international importance and we have our own hide-bound rules here. it shows a problem when bad language gets into the mark. i think it is at least important for this committee to go on record in some fashion not supporting the bad language. because we or i think are all supportive of israel. we need to make sure that our
friends and all supporters of israel know that our hearts are in the right place. before we get to the floor when some procedural conversations would be lessened i know the chairman is urging for me to withdraw the amendment. that makes it easier but i would ask counsel if there isn't some way where most members could go on record trying to do the right thick for israel here. >> if i can respond the issue we apply to all members is that if there is a squential referral on which a committee has not waived that means the bill cannot go to the floor. it gets referred to that other committee and that's the reason that under both parties for at least the last 24 years that i have been on this committee we do not allow amendments that do not have the waiver from the other committee. now, my hope is that the gentleman and all the colleagues who support this amendment would file it on the floor because then you get past that referred to another
committee issue and it seems to me on this issue with such support that there would be a lot of interest in having that amendment made in order a lot of support for it. but at this point we just can't consider it. >> that is cleaner procedurally and with the chairman's support i would be happy to proceed in that venue. i just hate to have international relations in one case the security of a nation tied up with our own parliamentary procedure. i wish the house foreign affairs committee had acted faster on the referral. >> i appreciate it. i agree although i do think that other countries understand some of the knots we get into and will be sympathetic. so with that the amendment is withdrawn. next the chair recognizes the chairman from arizona mr. franks for the purposes of an eafment >> i have an amendment at the desk.
>> if the clerk would distribute the amendment. without objection the amendment is is considered as read and mr. franks is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i first want to thank chairman rogers for going far beyond the president's request, far above and beyond for israeli missile defense funding and once again reaffirming his own and of course congressional intent to support israel and their
seemingly never ending fight against radical terrorism. i express my appreciation to mr. cooper for his efforts. the support that congress has shown for israel has saved countless lives. and it has helped keep the world's only jew wish state strong and prosperous. unfortunately groups like hamas and hezbollah and rejeemed like iran continue to call for the destruction of israel while at the same time procuring more and more advanced weaponry. with longer range and more precise rockets and ballistic milssles i ral's survival rests on their ability to survive. by among other things building more advanced defense capabilities like that of the successful iron dome. more destructive missiles are
now being developed so quickly that for the first time the 2016 ndaa will assist israel in procurement of those systems. i know that chairman rogers whole heartedly supports israel this in fully funding its program. my amendment only seeks changes to help expedite the support to israel. i understand there is some confusion and apprehension about the underlying language and you drafted the chairman's mark when you did that and i fully understand your intent as well as his. having discussioned the issue with you personally prior to the markup today. so with your assurance has that we will work together to perfect this language as needed i yield to you for any comments that you would wish to make. >> i tharninge the gentleman from arizona for his amendment and the tonight to engage in a colloquy.
the only thing we disagree on is who supports the alliance with israel more. it's me. since becoming chairman i have included in my marks more than $1 billion. i understand the apprehensions and confusion surrounding the language mr. cooper and i wrote in the mark. i can promise him we will provide any needed clarifyications to support israel is assured. >> mr. chairman, i would thank chairman rogers and would thank you. with that i unanimously ask consent to withdraw my amendment. >> the amendment is withdrawn. further amendments. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma for the purpose of offering an amendment. >> i have an amendment at the desked. >> if the clerk would please distribute the amendment.
without objection the amendment is considered as read and you are recognized for five minutes. >> i intepid to withdraw this amendment. tts strikingly similar to ranking member cooper's amendment and i appreciate his support for these efforts. i recently introduced h.r. 1915 the david sling authorization act with congressman from the state of washington, a bipartisan bill. our bill authorizes procurement for the david sling miffleds. i am grateful for section 1670
of the chairman's mark that includes 150 million and 50 million. section 1670 also specifies the terms and conditions for releasing the authorized funding to the government of israel. mr. rogers i would like to enter into a colloquy with you. i would like to clarify one part of section 1670. this language is very carefully crafted but if feasible would you accept adjusting the conditions to provide more flexibility to israel in accessing authorized funds? clearly ranking member cooper is on board with that. will the gentleman work with me on the floor as the chairman indicated would be appropriate to provide israel more flexibility to access funding to procure long lead items and other critical items before the contract is signed? >> i thank the gentleman from oklahoma for his support.
i agree these are vital funds and are urgently needed. you have my agreement. we will see what language is needed to provide it. i think we are all on the same page here. >> i thank you mr. chairman. and to the other mr. chairman, i yield back. >> does the gentleman withdraw his amendment? >> i do. >> i appreciate it. next the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama mr. rogers. >> scuke to call up enblock packages of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority. >> wousmed. will the clerk distribute the enblock amendments.
without objection the amendments are considered as read. the gentleman from alabama is recognized to offer and explain the package. >> mr. chairman, i call up package one comprised of the following amendment 1 of the hyper sonic amendment. 11 regarding a briefing on counter electro magnetic interference requirement. amendment 53. adding a 15-year sunset to the prohibition on sharing missile defense information with russia. amendment 54 concerning the feasibility benefit and cost of using the evolved sea sparrow or standard missile 2 or ant-air wafer. adding a 15-year sun set concerning integration. 6 regarding technical correction.
63 regarding briefing an planning of left of launch capability. amendment 65 regarding a technical correction on the already dr. concerning notification to the committee concerning strategic forces capabilities. 81 r 1 regarding a briefing on requirement and plan. i yield back. >> is there further discussion? if not the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama mr. rogers. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. we're going to go out of order here for a second and the chair
without objection the amendment is considered read. the scombralt from tennessee is rkniesed. >> mr. chairman, this is perhaps the most important amendment of this subcommittee section here. for those who are not familiar with the portal monitoring system, the united states has invested almost $1 billion by putting these radio active detection monitors in some 49 countries around the world. the purpose is to try to track rogue pollute ownium, highly enriched uranium. things that could be used as a weapons of mass destruction against this country. we have some of the most dangerous smuggling borders in the world with this fixed portal monitoring. and i think it's important to keep that capability.
for example, the russians use it and depend on it. the chinese use and depend on it. are we suddenly going to do without that? i was surprised when i saw the mark and suddenly there is a prohibition on continuing the use of these portal monitors and to be clear the markup language does not prohibit mobile portal monitors. just the fix. there's a legitimate argument that a fixed portal monitoring can be circumvented by smugglers and others but just that forces them to go in less likely places, harder to reach places places where they can be caught possibly with a mobile monitor. but to sacrifice our security and our existing investment of over $1 billion in some 49 countries i got another briefing on this just yesterday. the threat is real. rogue states, rogue actors are
trying to proliferate this material. we've got to stop it wherever we can hopefully well outside our borders and that's where these monitors are. so i am hoping it was a mistake in the drafting of the mark. this prohibition i think we need to remove that prohibition so the united states of america can continue to rely on fixed portal monitors as part of our multilayered security defense system so we can keep this country safe. this is, as i say these mountain passes, some of these god foresaken places, the border with russia, pakistan, many of the locations are classified you're -- do not always work but puts the fear of the lord in the smugglers that they're going to be caught and at least makes them to diverse to other ways of getting it out. so let's keep our investment, try to improve the technology, fry to keep america safe.
i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> the gentleman from alabama. >> i thank the chairman. the gentleman my friend from tennessee agree on most things and he has been a great partner in running this committee for the last two-and-a-half years but there are occasionally some things we days gree on. i understand but we are here to set priorities. we cannot fund everything because taxpayer dollars are not unlimited. the committee has made similar prioritizations in last year's funding tables and it had bipartisan agreement. unfortunately just eliminating this program is not enough to get it to stick for fiscal year 2015. that's why we include in section 31-17 in this yoor's bill it's time to set real priorities and follow through. the mark also provides funding increases to other more effective nonproliferation and
nuclear counter terrorism programs. these see an $55 million increase over the request. that is real money and can help prove on successful ways of countering the prohibition. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. i yield back. >> the gentleman from rhode island. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak in support of the cooper amendment. let me start by saying i would say that prohibitting funds for placing these radiation detective monitors has got to fall into the category of you've got to be kidding me. i've spent eight years on intelligence, 15 years on this committee. it's one thing is that you have very consent rick layers of security. what you want to do is push out
the detection of threats as far as possible from the homeland. that's why we have troops in combat right now in harm's way overseas to prevent the threat from coming here at home. one of the greatest threats that we face to u.s. national security is use of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear or radiological threats are among the most severe with the most dire consequences. now, obviously good intelligence is always going to be at the very point of this spear but beyond that, talk about detecting some of the most dangerous weapons or material coming into this country and you have a mechanism to detect that through the use of these portal monitors why would you want to prevent those monitors from being in place? i would also say this. that without the monitors
there, it is very easy then for a terrorist to put a weapon or material on a vessel and go through regular shipping processes and procedures and just ship it over here without fear of detection? we want to make it as hard for the bad guys as possible. let's not allow them to have an easy passage of this type of material through our ports overseas where it's convenalt for them to just put it on a ship or some other mechanism of travel and just let it sail over here. no. let's make them -- if i know that we cannot prevent every possible threat to this country and when you have a determined adversary perhaps they will find a way. but i will say this. let's not make it easy for them. let's make it as difficult as
possible and certainly putting radiation port al monitors overseas is one of the best things that we can do in terms of taking away an easy point of passage for terrorists to smuggle that kind of material or a weapon into this country. so i applaud mr. cooper. i think this is more than reasonable. and i urge my colleagues to support it. if you really truly want to protect the homeland, protect the american people and certainly our allies, then the best thing we can do is push out those layers of security as far as we possibly can. thank you. and i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a point of clarification how much money and where does it come from if we strike section 3117? and i yield to the ranking member or chairman. >> as i understand, the markup
language was $90 million cut for this program. and i agree with my friend the gentleman from alabama we have to set priorities. i'm not objecting to the cut. it's the prohibition that really scarce me. to suntly shut down this technology from any future technology ever is not a perfect part of our layer defense and it's pretty darned good. it's already in 49 -- >> i got that part. it's 90 million. where do you take the money from? >> it's a cut. it's a savings by not funding this program. >> where do you get the money? >> we just strike to prohibition. we go ahead and have the cut. we save the money. >> ok. >> i'm just getting at the ban on future funding of this technology. because it's not perfect but it's a very helpful way to catch bad guys around the world before they get to this country. i yield back. >> further discussion?
the gentleman mr. larsen. >> thank you mr. chairman. earlier we had a debate on space based interceptors and the comment was made that the farther we can move intercept to the left the better off we are. when we have these portal monitors in place we are moving interception even before that point gets on the grass. it's that far left on the grass. having that ability to intercept well before material leaves the country is important. one from a border service stated with regards to the importance of fix radiation detective systems is to leave one border crossing is when a window open. if i leave the window open at some of these borders nuclear materials from these other country ks get in the united states and do harm. that's a lot different than merely leaving the window open.
having this outright ban is not the right approach and i ask folks to support mr. cooper on this. i yield back. >> further discussion if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee mr. cooper. in the opinion of the chair the no's have it. the gentleman from tennessee. roll call vote? will be postponed. we'll go back to the gentlewoman from california recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment i think it's 164 at the desk. >> and if the clerk would please distribute sanchez number 164.
without objection the amendment is considered as read. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to read the title and the first sentence of my amendment. independent report on extended nuclear deterrence. the committee directs the secretary of defense to request an independent study on extended nuclear deterrence and assurance particularly the continued role in the near term and longer term of nonstrategic nuclear weapons in providing contributions to extend a deterrent for and assurance of u.s. allies.
it's a report. this language requires an independent report. and it's just that, it's a report to better understand the extended deterrence and required reassurance for our allies. by the way this is not a prescribed outcome of any type. it's a report. and i would like to know for example where are -- where are nato allies are. what they're thinking. what we're looking at. and this is manifested in many ways. for example, several nato countries are allies have bought the f-35. we talked about that earlier in the day. which is used for nuclear sharing commitments but several have not. for example, germany hasn't. thus, i think that this would provide information on continued nato nuclear sharing and the cohesion. why is it that this hasn't happened?
in 2011, nato reviewed their deterrence posture and they might do it again. so i think it would be good for us to have a better understanding of the allied rylyance of u.s. nuclear weapon. and more importantly the u.s. is spending about 10 to $12 billion for refurbishing the b 61 and spends nearly $100 million for deploying these tactical nuclear weapons. there's also on the horizon another life extension program that will be required for the
in deterrence and defense of the alliance. nato has repeatedly reaffirmed that as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world nailto will remain a nuclear alliance. our allies have sought repeated assurances about these capabilities especially during the russian invasion of ukraine and consequence of the inf treaty. i've been to eastern europe twice. they already wonder whether we are willing to defend our article 5 commitment. they've seen what our president has done with red lines. the sanchez amendment would send the wrong message to our allies and the brong message to mr. puleten. i urge defeat and yield back. >> further discussion? the gentleman mr. gare mendie.
>> there's no doubt that there's a lot of trouble in europe. there's no doubt that there's a lot of trouble outside of ukraine and mr. putin and all the rest. this issue goes hopefully way beyond the situation. the question is how do we provide this extended nuclear umbrella in the most effective way in europe? we can do it correctly in a way that would be both strategically important as well as economically important. or we can sort of stumble along. where are our allies on this? they're not in unison. there were some that want this there were others that don't. kind of wanting to be in the dark here? i don't think so. i think we want information and the better we will be able to address a very complex and extremely important issue about how we move forward with nuclear deterrence in europe.
so what's wrong with getting knowledge and intelligence? so we ought to vote yes on this. and in 2016 have some more information for next year's ndaa. i yield back. further discussion? question is on the amendment offered by ms. sanchez. >> the no's have it. >> i'll take a recorded vote. >> which will be postponed. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california ms. sanchez for another amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this issue has to deal with nuclear nonproliferation. >> if the gentleman will suspend. so the clerk can distribute an amendment. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> 241 r 1.
without objection the amendment is considered as read. >> thank you mr. chairman. ok this is about flexibility. for our department of defense. and it's about nuclear nonproliferation. so i think it was last year or maybe the year before we started to allow some flexibility in the way that the department could transfer funds. and currently they are able to transfer funds if they need to, to weapons activities and to
naval reactors. and only to them. but it excluded nonproliferation. so this is just about adding nonproliferation to the ability to the departments if they should so need to to transfer fund in that direction. it doesn't take any funding away from weapons programs or from naval reactor programs. so here's an example of why we might need something like that. in 2013, the nnsa removed all the highly enriched uranium from ukraine. a total of 240 -- 234 kilo grams which is equivalent to ten nuclear weapons. it is difficult to predict where a crisis might arise but allowing the flexibility to ramp up nuclear weapons material removal is critical in
the event of a crisis. again, this doesn't take away from the others. it just allows for a transfer of funds that are already in the department should they have a need as they did in ukraine in 2013. i think this reament is insurance in case of a crisis in nuclear security. we don't know where the threats are going to come from, we don't know where it's going to be out there. the bill simply provides flexibility for the d.o.d. to transfer funds it already has toll nuclear weapons, to naval reactors, and to nonproliferation events. so i would encourage my colleagues to allow that flexibility and vote for the amendment. >> the gentlelady yield? the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama chairman
rogers, for five minutes. >> i am opposed. i can't believe we're having this debate again. very simply a provision has been in every final ndaa since 2012. er year seeks to amend this to include nonproliferation. every year it fails. every year it fails. we talk about it on the floor, in conference, never gets adopted. they have they are own program. it's authorized in our bill. i urge a no vote. i yield back. >> is there any further debate on the amendment? if not ms. davis from california is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think that the goal here really is to make certain that nonproliferation funding needs and flexibility are just as
important as ramping up other areas nuclear weapon material removal as these other areas. and so i think we want to take another look at this. it hazy been looked at before but i think it's ab important and critical one. >> i would say to the chairman of the subcommittee you're right i do bring up nonproliferation every single year because i do believe it is important. we not only have to be making better nuclear weapons and researching better nuclear weapons and modernizing. i know that's where you want to put the money. but as someone who looks at my family one of the things i want to do is that if there's an ability for us to make the world safer by safe guarding weapons that are already out
there that might fall into the wrong hands like in ukraine, then i think we should also imputting money towards that. so if you look at the budgets over the last couple years nuclear reactors and weapons. they've had high increases in the double digits. but yet nonproliferation has decreased by nearly 20%, the funds to nonproliferation since fiscal years 2011. i just think that we should have all the tools available for when a crisis comes up not just building new weapons. and so i would ask once again my colleagues to consider that our nonproliferation abilities and i inabilities are important for our conversation. i yield back. >> is there any further discussion on the amendment?
if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered gi mr. z sanchez. those opposed. in the opinion of the chair the knows have it. >> i'll request a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote is requested. that will be postponed. are there any other eamentsd? >> i have amendment 311 r 3. >> has that eement been passed out? >> not yet. >> pass out the amendment. wousmed we'll dispense with reading of the amendment. >> mr. chairman, this is basically a movement of moneys. it increases funding for army onm for based on rapingses
support by $217 million and radio stores funding for nuclear weapons programs that were cut while restoring nuclear weapons to budget requests by taking the increase above budget requests. so the army submitted an unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2016 of 560 million for base operations support. this amendment provides $213.7 million to meet nearly half of that requirement. and while the committee has met other unfunded army requirements through the proposed chairman's mark it did not address army-based operations which were severely hit by sequestration in fiscal year 2013 and saw only a 4.8 increase in funding in the fiscal year 10e6 president's budget request. i have been to several bases. i have talked to commanders.
they have pushed that maintenance on hold. and they really are looking forward to seeing an increase in the budget. the budget request for fiscal year 10e6 for nnsa weapons activities is 8.8 billion. this mark includes an increase of 237.7 million increases that the administration did not request and quite frankly which is not needed. just since last year, weapons activities budget request is over 10.5% higher than comparable fiscal year 2015 appropriations. these accounts have been increasing steadily and significantly for the past five years. weapons activity budget is almost 30% higher than in fiscal year 11. so i would request my
colleagues please to vote for this amendment and help our army base. thank you. and i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from alabama mr. rogers is recognized for five minutes. >> i strongly oppose this amendment. last november secretary of defense hagel said our nuclear deternt plays a critical role. no other capability we have is more important. ." so d.o.d. just called nuclear deterrence the nation's number one priority defense mission. that is the correct priority. i want to make my colleagues aware that this amendment would strike $150 million that we are authorized for addressing nnsa's 3.6 billion backlog and deferred maintenance. last year a chunk of concrete fell from the creeling of a building in tennessee where we build components for nuclear
weapons. no one was killed or injured but we are one chunk from a dead worker and the shutdown of our weapons maidability. finally the mark is already putting increased funding towards several u.s. army higher priorities. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. any other discussions? mr. gare mendi is recognized. >> thank you. i i think it's about time after all of these amendments with regard to the nuclear enterprise that we pause for a moment and consider what it all means. are we really are well into the first quarter of a new nuclear arms race. we start adding up all of these nuclear weapons systems all of which are proposed to be reduced marnlnally by this
amendment and it doesn't begin to equal the ip crease for all of the nuclear weapons activities. we are well into it when you consider the bombs themselves which are listed here in the amendment and you consider the delivery systems which we have not yet come to discussion. you'll come to realize that over the next 20 25 years we will be spending well over delrgs 1 trm on the nuclear weapons system. why we're doing that so is russia and china. it's an arm's race much like we saw in the 60's and 70's. and this one is particularly trouble system because the bombs are far nor precise, more sophisticated and the delivery systems are fast and stealthy and the old rules don't apply. so just for a moment those of
us that think that maybe we ought to rethink and pause for a moment on this new nuclear arms race and even for those that want to get on with it and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to just think about what the implications are. and the implications are dire. very serious here. this is a complex difficult serious matter. and we just cannot pile on. so ms. sanchez here actually puts a little tiny break -- doesn't stop it, hardly slows it down. but to give us a pause, look at each one of these funding reductions. each and every one of these is a nuclear bomb. extremely dangerous. perfectly capable of wiping out cities. and the rest. so pause for a moment.
we can spend this money more wisely and ms. sanchez suggests we spend it on something that the army needs today. just upgraded spaces. i support the amendment. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado mr. ham born is recognized. >> thank you. under new start, we rea deuce the number of our nuclear weapons and russia increases the number of its nuclear weapons. i don't know what kind of deal you call that. i don't think that's a great deal. it sounds like iran in some ways where that is shaping up. but whatever you call that i wouldn't call that a nuclear arms race. we're reducing, they're increasing. the one thing we are doing and i agree with this and applaud this on the part of the obama administration is we are modernizing the bar heads that we do have. and thart part of the quid pro
quo that senate agreed to when they ratified the new start treaty that we would modernize our nuclear stock pile. if we adopt it we gut that. this takes out $237 million especially the 150 million that chairman rogers referred to. we don't do the modernization nearly like we should. so i ask everyone to reject this amendment because it goes against the mod nchization that we're doing. we have a reduced number of nuclear war heads under new start. let's at least make sure that they are brought up to date. i yield back. >> is there any other discussion on the amendment? if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment. those opposed no. the no's -- >> i'll ask a recorded vote. >> recorded vote will be postponed. are there any additional
amendments? >> mr. chairman i have one more amendment. amendment 168 r 1. >> will the clerk pass out the amendment. without objection we'll dispense with the reading of the amendment. ms. sanchez is rec kneesed for five minutes for the purpose of offering and explaining her amendment. >> mr. chairman, as you know i've been spending quite a bit of time in the last couple of years with respect to our nato alliance. i think an alliance that many thought wondered a few years ago where we are headed and today after we see ukraine and others we understand that our nato alliance is incredibly important. it's the strongest that we have, the strongest one in the world.
we have for a while known that many of our allies have not been funding their defense pieces as they should and we have had several of our secretaries of defense call out and say that they need to step up to the plate and do this. one of the thing that is we have in europe of course is our forward deploys nuclear weapons. there are weapons, they are on bases in europe. and for the most part most of that cost is borne by the american taxpayer. so this amendment would require d.o.d. to make a request to nato for proportional cost sharing for these forward deploying nuclear weapons. what this amendment does is require a briefing on a cost sharing arrangement. and it asks d.o.d. to seek
conversation for expenses related for proportional cost of forward deploying nuclear weapons in nato and to provide a response to the congress. we are modernizing the b 61 in europe which is going to be a very expensive undertaking. it's about $10-12 billion over the next few years and nato does not contribute to these. the united states also pays for sustainment and man power to support these forward deployed deployments amounting in the ten obvious millions per year. so nato provides some security at these bases in some infrastructure upgrades but by and large the cost of this entire system is pretty much born by the taxpayer. so it is -- i am of the opinion
that nato countries should participate in burden sharing by contributing a fair share of the cost. and that's my amendment would simply ask for a better cost sharing arrangement ask the d.o.d. to speak this out. so i would hope that my colleagues would agree that some of this cost should be born by our nato allies and not holy by our american taxpayerers. and i ask them to support this amendment. and i yield back. >> pll rogers. >> thank you. i oppose the gentlelady's amendment. first the b 61's produced will all be u.s. weapons. nato does not own or control any of these weapons. second having allies fund is actually a violation of the nonproliferation treaty. i will leave it there because
the committee heard these points from me when this amendment was row jected as it should be again tonight. i urge a no vote. >> i would briefly add exception for the modernization these are paid for so the cost sharing is really not very significant and i don't see the need for this. i too would urge a no vote. further discussion on the amendment? if not the question is on the amendment offered by ms. chan ezz. those in favor say aye. those against say no. >> mr. chairman i would like a recorded vote. >> the chair rec noises the gentleman from tennessee mr. cooper for the purposes of offering an amendment. >> itch an amendment at the desked. >> the clerk will distribute the eement please.
without objection this amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five munths. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i intend to withdraw this amendment shortly. but before meshes stop paying attention, the purpose of this amendment is -- too late for some of you. the purpose of this amendment is to correct a feature of the mark that is micromanagement of nnsa. has one of the toughest jobs in all of american government. i know the chairman and other have been deeply involved for
many years. i think we have a heavy duty oversight responsibility but we don't want to get too much into the weeds of preventing the a-1 m executive agent for that agency. we don't want to do anything to hinder him from doing his job. i look forward to working with the excellent chairman of the subcommittee and mr. rogers so we can make nnsa function effectively. so with the chairman's permission i would like to withdraw the amendment at this point. >> the amendment is withdrawn. next the gentleman from washington mr. larson is recognized. >> scuke to be distributed. >> and the staff will please distribute the amendment. so while it's being distributed, a brief
description. if the gentleman -- i thought i gave enough time. well, just trying to give members a fair shot to see what's in the amendment before we start discussing it. >> without objection the amendment is considered as read and mr. larsen is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, this amendment modifies and or reports on the nuclear enterprise to include a 25-year plan and a plan covering the production timelines related to mod rpization of delivery system command and control and critical spills necessary to maintain testimony deterrence. i ask the question to approve this. the penguin and department of
pentagon and department of of defense, the modernization plan includes concurrent and variety including long range strike weapons, new nuclear sub and bomber and so on. many of these programs will peak between 24e and 3ef6 and many systems are expected to age out. at the same time, the d.o.d. will have to sustain existing nuclear weapons and platforms. and there's a variety that we can talk to at some point. but the government at this point will not be able to pay for all of the programs in the coming decades and this coming opinion comes from within the penguin and former officials. this requires careful planning beyond that. particularly since costs peaked beyond the 10-year window. that's why it's important i think that we require the pentagon to give us a 25-year plan. earlier this month the
undersecretary of atnl which kendall stated that we have a problem with recapitalizing these detenches adding we have a huge affordable problem with that basket of systems. it's a problem that we're going to have to face up to. must secure an additional 10 to 12 billion annually to modernize all legs of the nuclear force. so what i'm asking for the committee to consider and adopt is it's fairly simple. i do understand that the d.o.d. for the d.o.d. and for any agency can be difficult plan over the next 25 years. but for this committee to have a bter handle on what they plan to do with the nuclear enterprise this amendment would modify gwen the annual report on the plan for the stock pile the. to look at a 25-year window so
we can have a much clearer and better idea of what the enterprise is going to require. so i would ask the question to accept this and support it. with that, i yield back. >> mr. ronlers. >> thank you mr. chairman. while i know that my good friend from washington state's intentions are good i am going to have to oppose this amendment. this amendment amends an existing ten-year report to require d.o.d. to give us cost estimates of nuclear forces over 25 years. i asked the d.o.d. assistant secretary who would be responsible for creating this report if it was a good idea. after growning he said, not another report. ." and went on to say it would be burdensome. our witness mr. hopkins then explained, as ummed expect looking that far out 25 years the credibility of the numbers
will be very, very suspect. i would not recommend a new report but i would instead recommend we do what we're doing now which is sharing the base line plan which goes out 25 years and share that information as we have been doing. by the way c.b.o. has said much the same thing about every long-term cost east mass they're just not reliable. through existing reports we get detailed cost estimates for nuclear forces going out ten years and regular program plan updates. this is the right balance between transparency. this amendment would not result in good effective oversight in transparency. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back. >> mr. gare mendi.
ignorance is not good. let's just consider for a moment what we are in the process of doing. we just discussed a moment ago the development, the life extense program of hundreds, indeed thousands of nuclear bombs. very expensive. the b 61 being one example. and that's somewhere north of $12 over the next five to seven areas. we are now looking at not only the weapons that is the bomb but the delivery system. let's just consider what they are. there's a new d 5 missile submarine, several of them. there's a new nuclear fighter the new stealth long range bomber. a new crution missile for the delivery of nuclear weapons. the long range strike weapons, the bomber, new icbm's minute
men 3. nuclear subzero and nuclear bombs. this is very, very real. it is a knew nuclear arms race. russia is upgrading china's upgrading, france is upgrading and england. all of them are upgrading. does that moon we must go forward without knowing what we are getting into? that we do not need to know that this is a 25-year program? most of this isn't going to be in the next five -- most will be not be in the next ten years. the big costs actually begin somewhere after 2025. indeed, the department does have estimates at that same hearing that the chairman was so good in putting fogget. and he puts together very, very good hearings. excellent information. at that hearing, mr. hopkins, i asked him do you have the information and will you deliver it to me?
he said yes. i said when. he said tomorrow. it was actually a week later. it is a gutch of economic equations that are totally without any information what they mean. i have no idea what the factors are. but the information is out there. we are if ones that must make decisions about spending on systems over the next 25 years. and some people on this committee intend to be around here for the next 25 years. so why don't we get the information as best we can because it might prove to be extremely expensive. i suspect that's why frank kendall stated that they're going to have a problem funding this capitalization issue. we need to know this is our work. so why would be deny ourselves the basic information we must have as we enter into the second third fourth quarter
of a trillion dollar nuclear enterprise that we are going to build. do we want to be ignorant? i hope sno not. do we want to have the best information going forward? i hope so. i think this is an extremely important thing. i commend mr. larson for doing it and the chairman for putting together some excellent hearings. we hear things differently. we look at the same attacks and we see different things. we heard the words and we hear different things. but finding out is something we must have. each and every one of us on this committee. i ask for an eye vote. >> further discussion? if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from mr. larsen. the no's have it. the no's have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. the chair recognizes the ja
gentleman from alabama mr. rogers for the purpose of offering an enblock amendment. >> scuke to call up an enblock amendment that has been worked and approved with the minority. >> without objection, so ordered. if the clerk will please distribute the amendments to be offered enblock. >> mr. chairman. may i have a moment while this is being passed out? i appreciate the amenties that you have provided for us so far in the anti-room. it's been very good and i appreciate the other members and their generosity. you are a texan though. correct? >> absolutely correct. >> and if you notice out there, there is not a single dr. pepper in the entire room. i have been nursing this all day. it expired two years ago. there's a complaint i wish to lodge. >> the gentleman's complaint is dualy noted.
and if there's one thing i will say is i am learning every day about how we can improve the process. so we got beat but we didn't -- we got beat but we didn't quite get to the dr. pepper yet. >> mr. chairman if mr. bishop has another esa amendment perhaps he could leave go to the store and come back perhaps tomorrow morning. >> without objection, the enblock amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama is considered as read and the gentleman is recognized for the purpose of offering and explaining the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i call up enblock package two comprised of the following amendment 86 r 1 130 amendment 131 r 1 by mr. lamborn, amendment 187 r 1 by
mr. mcarthur. to offset current requirements. a briefing on u.s. forward deployed nuclear weapons. amendment number 214 r 1 by mr. larson regarding support. amendment 2 21 r 1 by ms. worlski concerning an increase in funding for concept development of conventional prompt global strike capability. i yield back. >> is there further discussion on the enblock package? >> mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from south carolina mr. wilson. >> i greatly appreciate the success olve subcommittee chairman mike rogers for
including amendment number 86. this amendment seeks to determine if the lack of a pension adjustment for the river site retirees is commensurate with other public and private sector pension plans over the same period of time. the amount of oversite retirees have not seen a cost of living pension adjustment since 2002. since the last cost of liing adjustment inflation has increased by 30%. srs retirees served their country during a certain un-- uncertain period of time. this language is imperative to begin the process to make fiscally responsible decisions to assist srs retirees moving forward. i yield back. >> is there further discussion on the enblock amendment? does the gentleman from utah wish to be heard? >> not really. but in all due respect mr.
forbes is a better man than i am and found a dr. pepper in the other room. so i withdraw my complaint and give my abject apologies to the chairman. >> the moral of the story is the staff is really good of taking care of us even when we don't know. that's exactly what was happening. the >> the question is on the enblock amendments offered by mr. rogers. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the ayes have it. and the amendment is adopted. >> the senate rurps today at 3 p.m. eastern they will consider overriding a presidential demeasure. senators also expectd this week to continue work on the iran nuclear oversight bill and begin conversation of the 2016 budget resolution negotiated by house and senate conferees. the house is out this week for a district work period. members return for legislative business on may 12.
as always you can watch the house live on c-span and the senate live on c-span 2. >> tonight on the communicators, we spoke with three members of congress with shared issues. al franken bob good lath and doris matsui. >> firmly believe that comcast were allowed to buy time warner cable that they would have been too big a company, ant competitive not in the public interest, would have led to higher prices for consumers, less choice. and if even possible. >> we're also working on something part of technology dealing with privacy and protection of civil liberties and that is legislation dealing with the nsa and the fisa
court. dealing with the revelations about the gathering of telephone meta statea. this bill which passed the house with a big parp vote in the last congress we're about to bring it up again, bans meta data collection and storage by the government. >> if you saw the net neutrality debate also that was unbelievable in the sense that people understand that the internet should be free. and there should not be people who get faster access or not. so when that he occurred, that whole energy that happened with that when chairman wheeler because of the overturning of the open internet order, when he had to have a new proposal up there, when he just hinted that there might be
>> coming up on c-span, q&a with "washington post" columnist walter pincus followed by "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern and your calls and the morning's latest news. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption contents and accuracy. visit ncicap.org brian: this week on "q&a," our guest is walter pincus of the "washington post." he writes about national security and defense issues. he talks about his recent articles and events in the news. brian: how long have you been writing for the "washington post?" walter: i started in 1960.
ben bradlee hired me in 1966. i left in 1969, and came back in 1975. brian: what is a significant change in this country that you watched? walter: partisan politics. i really worry now about the system that politics has become. democracy is built on the idea of compromise. you cannot make it work unless you compromise. brian: your column "fine print" -- where did you get the name? walter: ben bradlee used to complain that i didn't make sense to most people. i named it "fine print" because
i try to look at things people forget about. brian: how often do you write? walter: i started twice a week and i cut back to once a week because i am writing a book. brian: how old were you when you cut your law degree? walter: i was 68. brian: why did you do it? walter: both of my parents lived to 95. the typical age of retirement at the "post" is 70. and i figured i had another 20 years to go. a good friend of mine said what are you, a lawyer? i had covered a lot of trials. my oldest son is a lawyer. and so i went to law school thinking of a practice law. br